Slashdot Mirror
Ireland Criminalizes Blasphemy
An anonymous reader writes "Another European country clamps down on free speech. From the article: 'It does seem bizarre that, in 2009, a modern European nation would seek to shield religious belief from criticism — yet that is what is happening in Ireland right now. In repealing the 1961 Defamation Act, the Irish government sought to expunge the worst excesses of Ireland's draconian laws restricting free speech, but in the process it has ended up making offending religious belief a criminal offence. Aside from a 25,000 fine (reduced from the 100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using "reasonable force," premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of "blasphemous statements."'"
It's like watching V for Vendetta in real life. 0.o
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
No see its ok. It's with a lowercase g so it's my god and not the real God.
What happens if I have a religious belief that censorship offends god? Can I get those advocating censorship tried under this law?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
the Irish inquisition!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.
Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)
-SaNo
I feel sorry for all Irish black metal bands and for those in Ireland that would expect Cradle of Filth to play there...
...and I mean that literally. When I read that a modern western country has enacted a law that allows for the prosecution of the "crime" of "blasphemy", I got a cold chill down my spine. What's next? Imprisonment and torture for various forms of heresy?
WTF?
Isn't it funny how the religionists keep whining about antagonistic and mean atheists are, and how that is their primary rebuttal to the arguments of public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and yet, given the free hand to manipulate the government, they go and pass laws like this. They'd do it in America too, have done it in the past, if not for that pesky First Amendment and the strident efforts of "militant" atheists and civil rights organizations.
Seriously, the Southpark guys are frikken heroes when it comes to freedom of speech and expression and trampling on stupidity. They depicted Muhammad without causing riots somehow. They exposed scientology to the world for all its ridiculousness and countless other things. Southpark needs to create an answer to all of this and the spokesperson for Ireland really needs to be the Lucky Charms guy ... and/or the Irish Spring guy going around and cutting into everyone's soap.
Religion is a choice that people make. It is rooted into culture and geography and nearly all other aspects of human existence, but it is not beyond question or criticism.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster.
If they would also make Jedi an official religion like in Australia (IIRC), so next time people have a Star Trek convention they could go there, start a flamebait topic between Star Wars-fans and Trekkies, and start collecting cash. On the other hand... Trekkies rarely have tons of cash.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
We don't even need the "???" :-)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
This isn't really nerd news here, the online part of this story is ancillary to the main issue.
This isn't news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Hmmm... this might seem like "stuff that matters" to people who live in Ireland.
My domains are Blasphemous in English and the French Government seems refuse to recognise English and France is pretty ant-religious zealotry to boot.
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
I'm a very religious person and this kind of stuff makes me sick. One of the foundations of my country is that it has no state-sponsored religion, or that it's not a (specific) religion-sponsored state. Governments have responsibility to protect their citizens from harm, but not at the expense of freedom. I may not agree with what you teach, what you share, what you distribute, but it is your God-given right (or as some may prefer, your natural right, or Spaghetti-given right) to believe, practice, share, and disagree. This kind of thing is a tragedy as it will hamper the rights of individuals and their ability to express themselves.
I have no problem with God...
It's his fan club that I hate.
I guess now it's up to the religious leaders to redefine what "blasphemy" means. We'll see what they come up with...
So when a religious person and an atheist meet and say something like "I find your views completely ridiculous" at the same time to each other then the religious person can sue the atheist but not vice versa?
Reminds me of this
From the article, which is just one journalist's opinion:
I'm of Irish ancestry. I've been to Ireland. Stopping blasphemy would require shuttering the Guinness plant and every bar in Ireland, and believe me, that will cause a LOT more swearing!
stuff |
"my diety, the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
I wish it were possible to mod something +5 Unintentionally Funny.
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
It's one of those old laws that's been in the books for years, but never removed. Someone could still be arrested and charged with blasphemy in Massachusetts (although that would probably cause a shitstorm of controversy these days), but the last time that happened was in 1838.
...Big Brother socialist
Lol...Socialists banning blasphemy? Do you seriously expect to be taken seriously?
Does "Religion is the opium of the people" ring any bell?
The Church has nothing to do and that's true. It is simply well known that the Irish society is "very" traditional (divorce was only introduced in the 90's). The leading party of the Irish government is Fianna FÃil. A liberal party. The rest of the coalition is composed by a green party and independents. There is no socialist party in the coalition AFAIK. Stop using Socialism like a buzzword to describe any political event in Europe. It is simply ridiculous.
Canadian Laws regarding "hate speech" have to do with inciting others to violence against any distinct group of people, whether they be gays, muslims or WASPs. Criticism in and of itself is not prohibited. For example:
"Go forth and kill all Pastafarians." This is iIllegal in both Canada and Ireland.
"All Pastafarians are idiots." This is legal in Canada, but illegal in Ireland.
IANAL and all that, but so far as I understand it, it is legal to criticize religious (or whatever) groups in Canada, but not legal to incite others to commit violence against them.
You must have mistaken me for European. I'm American and I'm honestly sick and tired of the government destroying every single shred of freedom in the name of "safety". Sure, parts of Europe are even more messed up than the US, but the US doesn't have to emulate Europe and neither does Europe have to emulate the US. The US should give its citizens its freedom back, rather than keep destroying it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have the law - and I don't see how anyone else can say "this law is wrong!" without some basis for what is right or wrong.
Bullshit. Some things are just fucking wrong as they are inherent violations of human rights. Joe Atheist's right to talk smack about my (Christian) God is far more important than my right not to be offended by it.
I hate this moral relativism crap, and I'm kind of surprised that any self-described conservative would go along with it. Female mutilation in Sharia turf isn't OK just because "their culture allows it". Screw Godwin: the Holocaust wasn't OK just because "their culture allowed it". Well, religious censorship isn't OK just because "their culture allows it".
I was also a conservative Christian until I decided that having the power to prevent activity I disliked would suck if the tide ever turned against my beliefs. I'm now a libertarian Christian because I want the right to act, worship, and speak as I want even if it means that people I disagree with get to do the same. This is the case here. It's not that I'm keen on blasphemy, but if I want the right to say "Allah is a dork", then I have to let others say the same about Jehovah.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Islam is blasphemous to Christianity, Christianity and Islam are blasphemous to Jews, Catholicism is blasphemous to protestants, and protestantism is blasphemous to Catholics. Does that mean the Irish can (finally!) kick the entire lot off the island?
And why should Christians be allowed to insult atheists with impunity?
Or does this law only apply to protect big, arrogant sky-god religions? Oh, why do I even ask, it's Ireland we're talking about.
Blasphemy is not "hate speech"
Blasphemy targets the deity in which religious people believe, NOT the people themselves.
Now, I am quite convinced that if any supernatural being existed, it would be quite capable of handling "blasphemy" gracefully, which may be untrue for cultural/religous/lifestyle groups - which the "hate speech" laws in certain countries attempt to protect.
Nonetheless, I am also opposed to those anti "hate speech" laws since it both creates a breach in freedom of speech - but - even more dangerous - segregates those groups unto special status - and - de-facto - creates a rift between group of individuals.
To push my point further, when a country promotes a law prohibiting "hate speech" towards - say - homosexuals, they are specifically stating that homosexual have *different* rights than heterosexuals ! and *I* believe this is wrong.
--Ivan
They may not make laws against blasphemy...but politically correct speech and other things that "hurt my feelings", they take the cake on that.
Therefore, I'd say it's not religious zealots OR liberal idiots that are responsible alone, but rather people in general who fall to the extremes.
Nobody knows whether there is a god ... I believe that there are no gods.
Zealots, of any sort, can't tell the difference between "knowing" and "believing". That's what you have to take into consideration.
As for myself, I'm an agnostic. I believe there's no way we can actually say whether there is or is not a god, but I feel there is none. People say that stance lacks conviction, but I feel I'm being more realistic on the matter.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
That sounds like a slight misinterpretation to me. According to Seciton 319 of the Criminal Code:
In other words (as far as I understand it) "God condemns homosexuality", or even "I hate queers" likely won't get you prosecuted, but "We should be stoning fags" would. The key parts are that the statements must be public and be likely to disturb the peace.
The new Irish law targets blasphemy, which (according to the Irish Times) is defined as
So the Canadian law is about attempting to incite action against any identifiable group, the Irish blasphemy law is criminalizing saying things religious organizations find offensive. I think this is a significant difference, both in terms of what is illegal (an attempt to incite harm versus "outraging" someone) and in terms of who is protected (any identifiable group versus religious organizations.)
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
as you depart the plane here at Dublin international, remember to please set your watches back 6 centuries.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.
South Africa, last year. Incitement to hatred against immigrants: result, countless attacks and weeks of unrest as the locals attacked immigrants and forced them to flee for their lives.
Rwanda, several years ago. Incitement to hatred against one "race": result, 1 million dead, many hacked to bits as they sought shelter. In a few weeks they killed then half a year of all the concentration camps of WW2.
Germany, Crystal Night. incitement to hatred against jews. Result: several dead, buildings burned and the prelude to the holocaust.
There are lots of other examples, and you DARE to say that incitement to hatred should not be a crime.
That is EXACTLY the same as saying that offering a contract on someones life should not be a crime because it is only words.
Read a book. Any book. Just once and grow up mate.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Words do not have the power to kill or otherwise (really) hurt someone. Therfore they should be unregulated unless dealing with a contract or an offer to trade.
I so wish you were right. The problem is that we don't want to acknowledge the elephant in the room... propaganda works, on enough people to make a difference. Ask a Rwandan or Bosnian, or study Himmler (who famously claimed that it was the loudspeaker that conquered Germany). Sometimes, during genocide, it's hard for people to separate the words from the machete; one is an extension of the other.
I don't mean that in any mystical sense, I'm thinking of the stanford prison experiment etc. The line between speech and a decision to act disappears. Your conviction (and my wishes) about the independence of speech from action is an abstraction, since it requires humans who are uniformly well-schooled to be proud individualists, skeptics, and responsible citizens.
Perhaps we can find a functional way to make political speech a social contract that is bound to regulation like other transactions... after all, genocide relies on fraudulent and deceptive claims. The problem always resides with who gets to determine the truth.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Here we go again, though:
as they are inherent violations of human rights
Who gets to define what human rights I have?
I agree, female mutilation isn't OK. Incidentally, it's the "Well it's their culture, we shouldn't tell them it's wrong" opinions tend to be less on the "Let's base things on the Bible/God/whatever" side and more on the "We need to base things on the way they have been in history" side.
Religious censorship or non-religious-censorship isn't OK because their culture allows it. I agree. That's a bad basis of "OK" and "not OK." On the other hand, saying it's NOT ok simply because YOU think it's a violation of these "inherent" (inherent to what?) human rights doesn't seem like a logical argument either. Rights are things that are given. No, all rights are not given "by God." But rights ARE given by "the government." Or taken away. Etc. Whether or not they government SHOULD give/take those rights is what we're discussing, thus the "OK" has to be based on something higher than human government... so here we are again: who decides?
And ... why is Ireland's basis for their decision better or worse than yours?
Again, I'm not advocating for or against the law, but arguing that the position taken by most "This is awful!" people seems like it tends to be based on a vague "this violates my inalienable rights" idea with no explanation of where these "inalienable" rights came from.
Well YOU might be happy with letting global Troll populations starve to death, but I actually care about the genetic diversity of our planet. We might not be able to prevent a large-scale die-off, but at least we can preserve enough specimens to start breeding programs in a handful of zoos.
Again, I'm not advocating for or against the law, but arguing that the position taken by most "This is awful!" people seems like it tends to be based on a vague "this violates my inalienable rights" idea with no explanation of where these "inalienable" rights came from.
That pretty well sums up the differences of our opinions. I agree with Jefferson: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent rights that all people are born with, period. Contrary to your position, I believe that government can only restrict rights and can't grant new ones. Given a default state of freedom, after all, where can a government do other than agree to restrict you the least amount necessary for society to function correctly? With this in mind, I truly can't think of any right more fundamentally important than freedom to speak your opinion. If it's illegal for me to say that I disagree with something, then nothing else matters, does it?
Honestly, I'm a little horrified to find people in the Western world who think restrictions on religious freedom are tolerable and maybe even good. As I said, if I want to speak against Islam or Scientology or the FSM, then I have to permit others to speak against my God. There are no circumstances in which it's acceptable for the government to declare one religion as good and protected above others.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
http://blasphemy.ie/
Just thought I'd share.
You just got troll'd!
1. Agnostics don't feel they're avoiding a position. Their position is clear: conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence.
You're right, but you're not taking your own statement far enough. Conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence, and evidence cannot be found for something that has no definition. The only thing about "God(s)" that people can agree on is that the word, when written in English, has three letters, four if plural. If we can't define something by consensus, then we can reach no conclusions regarding its existence.
(Inevitably, the reply to this is, "But my idea of God is the omnipresent Creator of all space and time. I don't believe in any of that Jesus stuff." To which my response is, "Then we're clearly not talking about the same thing. Most peoples' God seems to be a lot more specific in His likes and dislikes than yours, and that's a problem for the rest of us.")
Any claim merits cognitive consideration (also known as thinking about it). Dismissing claims entirely outright because of the claimant specifically or the "arbitrary" appearance of such a claim would violate the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Life's too short to take the idea of leprechauns and unicorns seriously. Treating all claims as equally worthy of consideration is just plain silliness. Only when we exhaust the possibilities of the natural, will there be time to consider the supernatural.